Skip to main content

About your Search

20121001
20121009
STATION
MSNBC 10
MSNBCW 10
CSPAN 9
CNN 6
CNNW 6
WETA 3
KNTV (NBC) 2
WMPT (PBS) 2
WRC (NBC) 2
CNBC 1
CSPAN2 1
FBC 1
KGO (ABC) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 75
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 75 (some duplicates have been removed)
be notified as required by law that they could be out of work. mike emanuel is live in washington. this really affects all of us. if all of those employees are unemployed that really can move our unemployment rate and the job situation in this country, mike. what exactly is the law and what is being done right now? >> reporter: jenna the law is call the warn act which is supposed to provide 60 days notice ahead of mass layoffs, if those pentagon cuts could take effect. the obama administration says don't send out the notices right before election day, and if you, government contractor gets sued we'll pay your legal bills. i asked an expert if that is legal. >> the administration has said that you don't have to send out these notices, because we haven't given you the specific information as to what plans, what projects will be cut. the o & b was supposed to produce that information. have you a rather bizarre game of chicken, on this occasion, however it will be thousands of workers that go over the cliff. but ultimately it comes down to the administration saying we think we going to win. >> rep
's assume a new set of laws is passed. as quickly as they are passed, election lawyers figure out how to get around them. it is remarkable. it's constantly evolve issue. would i support moving the money back to the candidates. absolutely. i think there has to be a mechanism i worked for two millionaire politicians. i believe there should be a mechanism for rank and file. to be able to raise larger amounts. but i believe putting the money back in the candidate account create more accountability and much more integrity driven process to frame an election. me personally yes. and, you know, does my firm make money off the kinds of campaign. absolutely. from my perspective i think it's better for the country if we went back to that model. >> can i answer? >> i don't know that i agree with the assumption of the question. if you look at what -- [inaudible] look at what super pac actually do and what the advertising does, everyone in here age lot of people in the political times remember the question in political times 101 should the elected representative do what he believes is right or what the co
they shouldn't bother showing up to vote. in the real world it is a consequence of what people believe the law is in pennsylvania. before the ruling this week, when the law stated that you did need an id to vote. here is what votespa.com told voters. here is what the splash page website greets voters as of earlier this week. that small print after the judge's ruling, after it became clear that you do not need to have an id to vote in pennsylvania, you are welcome at the polling place, here is how they changed the website, you ready? look at that difference. oh yes, there it is. a change in the small print. but the impression is pretty much the same. if you don't have a driver's license don't show up. this is going on in other states. states where they were not able to change the law. where there is still an effort to make people think they need an id to vote. in idahoidaho, here is what the state is distributing. bring your id and vote. you hear about things like this every election year. it is another thing for it to be your state. your state using your tax dollars to miss inform you about yo
but they encouraged that everybody would vote. now understand that under the new voter i.d. laws, i was told that in some cases, they are shifting id's from people who don't have an expiration date. i retired in 1991 and i have had the same id card for 21 years. guest: sergeant major, thank you for your service. i served on active duty the same time you did. i retired in 2004 and i joined in 1984. i am revealing my age now -- there are voting assistance officers on every duty station. if you are working in the battalion headquarters or company headquarters, you might be aware of who that is. i was a logistics marine which meant i was driving a tractor trailers, served the infantry, hold all over the state of california or in open now, japan and did massive field time. i had no awareness of who the voting assistance officer was, what my deadlines were to get registered to vote. there was no awareness or training. i think everybody and acted to the can agree that there are opportunities in the military to do mandatory training. everybody knows taxes are due on april 15. we set up tax centers o
beaten to death. was written cabin" very much as a protest novel to the fugitive a state law or anyone in the north, including new england, with the abolitionists and -- if anyone in the northwest to aid or abet a fugitive slave, they themselves would be imprisoned or fine for breaking the law. this was seen as a compromise between the north and south to avoid war. that was part of what the novel was trying to do, to say, listen, i am a person, harriet beecher stowe, and i'm against slavery, as was much of new england, and i just my right to call a slave who finds him or herself -- t.s. my right to help the slave who finds him or herself within our borders. >> more about it. beecher stowe this weekend as -- or about. beecher stowe this weekend as we look behind the history and literary history of augusta, maine. sunday at 5:00 p.m. on american history tv on c-span3. >> almost 20 years ago, we broadcast one of the most controversial stories in our 44 years on the air. it was called "yes, but is it art?" at was accused of being a philistines, someone without the ability to appreciate con
studies election law, it is great to be in a state where you see presidential candidates campaigning. because of our electoral college system, most of the country nowadays, it is a small number of states that get virtually all of the attention. we are either the beneficiaries are the victims, depending on your perspective. you cannot turn on the television in ohio without seeing a campaign advertisement, including many presidential advertisements, without being hit by a motorcade. in your station, channel 10, at 5:30 in the morning there is a six minute commercial break and in those minutes six different commercial ads ran. at what point is there a law of diminishing returns? guest: if your campaign has the money, you cannot go quiet. i think he would be at a disadvantage, if they go dark. more importantly, to answer the question, the vote in ohio is today, this week. these candidates are doing everything that they can, restructuring to some degree. mitt romney and the president talking directly to the camera, making their appeal. i think that dan is right. this is one of five states
on these matters. i do like virginia's laws based on freedom and disclosure. and if there was more freedom, more of the contributions would come to the campaigns. what i would like to see in any ads that are run, whether run by candidates or independent groups, including the ones that are running negative ads that are false and misleading about me, is honesty. tim has brought up this issue of pay. and he's running these ads saying that, quote, he's setting a positive example by cutting his pay as governor. and he attacks the owner. attacked me today again on it. let me give you the truthful facts and you be the judge. as governor day one i returned 10% of my salary. all four years. mark warner followed up after me a few years later and cut his by 20%. what did tim do? he didn't cut his pay at all. when he came in, he could have found followed mark warner or my example but it was well into second year as governor he cut it by just 5%. so i was the one who actually set the positive example, tim, that you followed by you did do it half heartedly. and as far as in the senate, in the senate i returne
treatments are given here that is explicitly prohibited in the lot. -- in law. let's go back to what gov. romney indicated. under his plan, he would be able to cover people with pre- existing conditions. actually governor, that is not what your plan does. your plan duplicates what is already the law. if you are on health insurance for three months, then you can end up getting continuous coverage. insurance company cannot deny you if it has been under 90 days. that is already the law. that does not help millions of people out there with pre- existing conditions. there is a reason why governor mitt romney said of the plan he did in the massachusetts. -- set up a plan he did in massachusetts. it was the largest expansion of private insurance. what it does say is insurers -- you have to take everybody. that also means -- when gov. romney says he will replace it with something but cannot detail how it will be replaced -- and the reason he said of the system -- he set up a system because there is not a better way of dealing with pre-existing conditions. it just reminds me -- he says he will cl
are talking about can't make decisions about what treatments are given. that's explicitly prohibit in the law. but let's go back to what governor romney indicated. under his plan, he would be able to cover people with pre-existing conditions. well, actually, governor, that isn't what your plan dis. what your plan does is to duplicate what is already the law, which says, if you are out of length insurance for 3 months, then you can end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can't deny you if it's been under 90 days. but that's already the law. that doesn't help the millions of people out there with pre-existing conscience. there is a reason why governor romney set up the plan that he did in massachusetts. it wasn't a government takeover of health care. it was the largest expansion of private insurance. but what it does say is that insurers, have you to take everybody. now, that also means have you more customers. but when governor romney says he will replace it with something, but can't detail how it will be in fact replaced and the reason he set up the system he did in massac
-early voting law was. nina turner is here with us. we're right back. [ male announcer ] the 2013 smart comes with 8 airbags, a crash management system and the world's only tridion safety cell which can withstand over three and a half tons. small in size. big on safety. is the same frequent heartburn treatment as prilosec otc. now with a fancy coating that gives you a burst of wildberry flavor. now why make a flavored heartburn pill? because this is america. and we don't just make things you want, we make things you didn't even know you wanted. like a spoon fork. spray cheese. and jeans made out of sweatpants. so grab yourself some new prilosec otc wildberry. [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. satisfaction guaranteed or your money back. [ male announcer ] the exceedingly nimble, ridiculously agile, tight turning, fun to drive 2013 smart. ♪ >>> in the big finish tonight, a study is exposing how racist an anti-voting law was. it would discriminate against african-americans in ohio's second largest city of cleveland. the study found that african-americans used
about what treatments are given. that's explicitly prohibited in the law. but let's go back to what governor romney indicated that under his plan he would be able to cover people with preexisting conditions. well actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does. what your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law which says if you are out of health insurance for three months than you can end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can't deny you if it's been under 90 days. but that's already the law. and that doesn't help the millions of people out there with preexisting conditions there's a why reason governor romney set up the plan that he did in massachusetts. it wasn't a government takeover of health care, it was the largest expansion of private insurance. but what it does say is that insurers, you've got to take everybody. now, that also means that you've got more customers. but when governor romney says he'll replace it with something but can't detail how it will be, in fact, replaced and the reason he set up the system he did in massachusetts was beca
're talking about can't make decisions about what treatments are given. that's prohibited in the law. but let's go back to what governor romney indicated; that under his plan he would be able to cover people with preexisting conditions. governor what your plan does is to duplicate what is already the law, which says that, you know, if you are out of health insurance for three months then you can end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can't deny you if it has been under 90 days. but that's already the law, and that doesn't help the millions of people out there with preexisting conditions. there's a reason why governor romney set up the plan that he did in massachusetts. it was the largest expansion of private insurance, but what it does say is is insurers you have got to take everybody. that also means you have more customers, but when governor romney says he replace it with something, but can't detail how it will in fact be replaced -- and the reason he set up the system he did in massachusetts is because there isn't a better way of dealing
what treatments are given. that's explicitly prohibited in the law. but let's go back to what governor romney indicated, that under his plan, he would be able to cover people with pre- existing conditions. that isn't what your plan does. what your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law, which is that if you are out of health insurance for three months, then you can end up in getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can deny you if it's been under 90 days. -- cannot deny you if it's been under 90 days. but that's already the law, and that doesn't help them and the people out there with preexisting editions. -- the millions of people out there with preexisting conditions. there's a reason why governor romney set up the plan he did in massachusetts. it wasn't a government takeover of health care. it was the largest expansion of private insurance. but what it does say is that, insurers, you've got to take everybody. that also means you've got more customers. but when governor romney says he'll replace it with something but cannot detail how it will be replaced and the
, president obama's done a much better job in enforcing the trade laws than we've ever seen before. he's pushed china. he just won three cases. he won a case on pipe to put thousands of people back to work. he won a case of tires that put people back to work. and he just filed one on auto parts. look, mitt romney's talk is cheap. he'll go back to this -- he's working on currency. we're all working on currency. mitt romney will go back to the same paradigm that we had before. signing agreements that are good for wall street but not good for main street. >> even though this tax increase that we're about to see is going to increase taxes for anybody making more than $250,000. >> which tax increases you talking about? >> the fiscal cliff issue as we see the tax cuts expire at year end. >> well, the president said he wants to continue those tax breaks for people earning less than $250,000. it's the republicans that say no, we won't give anybody anything unless the millionaires and billionaires get their tax cut too. they don't need -- they need to pay their fair share. and we -- >> thanks,
is already the law. if you are on health insurance for three months, then you can end up getting continuous coverage. insurance company cannot deny you if it has been under 90 days. that is already the law. that does not help millions of people out there with pre- existing conditions. there is a reason why governor mitt romney said of the plan he did in the massachusetts. it was the largest expansion of private insurance. what it does say is insurers -- you have to take everybody. that also means -- when gov. romney says he will replace it with something but cannot detail how it will be replaced -- and the reason he said of the system he did in massachusetts is because there is not a better way of dealing with pre-existing conditions. it just reminds me -- he says he will close deductions and loopholes for his tax plan. we do not know the details. he says that he is going to replace dodd-frank, wall street reform, but we do not know exactly which ones. he will not tell us. he now says he will replace obamacare and insurer as all the good things and it will be in there and you do not have to
. that is explicitly prohibited in the law. let's go back to what governor romney indicated.. under his plan, he would be able to cover people with pre-%+ existing conditions. actually, governor, that is not what your plan does. what it does is to duplicate what is already the law, which says, if you are out of health insurance for three months, you pan end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company cannot deny you if it has been under 90 days. but that is already the law. that does not help the millions of people out there with pre- existing conditions. there is a reason why governor romney set up a plan he did in massachusetts. it was not a government takeover of health carr. it was the largest expansion of private insurance. what it does say is insurers, you havv to take everybody. that also means yyu have more customers. but when governor romney says he will replace it with some thing, but can not detail how it will be replaced, and the reason he said the system in massachusetts is because there is not a better way of dealing with the pre-existing conditions problem. he says he will c
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 75 (some duplicates have been removed)